An argument for actual innocence of Oswald in the Tippit case

[Greg Doudna]

Ruby connects himself in some way to the Tippit killing through a "Freudian slip"?

Carousel Club dancer Joyce McDonald, stage name Joy Dale, lived at 424 ½ West Tenth Street, Apartment 3, in Oak Cliff. This was her correct address as furnished by Andy Armstrong from Carousel Club written records to the FBI on Nov 26, 1963 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=111) and furnished by Joyce McDonald herself when she was interviewed by the FBI on Dec 2, 1963  (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57014#relPageId=80).

But on Nov 24, 1963, later the same day he killed Oswald, Jack Ruby was interviewed by the FBI and asked to name names and give addresses that he knew, which Ruby did. Most of the names Ruby gave he did not give street addresses known by heart but for a few he did. One Carousel Club employee address Ruby did give was for dancer Joyce McDonald, stage name Joy Dale.

But Ruby gave a wrong address for her, by mistake. Instead of the correct address (above) in the 400's block of West Tenth, Ruby--by mistake--gave the street address where Tippit was killed. Instead of Joyce McDonald’s address in the 400’s block on West Tenth, Ruby gave the Tippit killing address in the 400s block of East 10th St.!

• By mistake (and that is surely what this was, a mistake) Ruby gave his dancer Joyce McDonald's (Joy Dale)'s home address as "410 1/2 -- 10th St." (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=60).
• Tippit was shot dead by his killer when he pulled his cruiser over in front of 410 East 10th St.

The Tippit killing address had nothing to do with Joyce McDonald, despite Ruby providing that as her address. Joyce McDonald did not live there. Nor is there any reason to suppose she had anything otherwise to do with that address. It was because her correct address by accident also was on Tenth Street (even though West Tenth St), and by accident also on a 400's numbered block, which caused a confusion in Ruby's brain. Ruby got two distinct and unrelated addresses, both of which he knew, confused, pure and simple.

It was not a case of either of the following two explanations, both of which can be dismissed on grounds of simple improbability:

• A second or previous actual address for Joyce McDonald, because the addresses are too similar (400s block; Tenth; ending with 1/2) to be explicable as coincidence in a move from one location to another location by the same person.
• A random mistake on Ruby’s part, the verbal equivalent of a typo with no further significance, because if that were the case it would have been random and not landed on the street address where Tippit was killed, of all places for a random street address to land.

The street address of the house in front of which Tippit was killed which Ruby supplied by mistake (to which Ruby included the “1/2” from Joyce McDonald's address which Ruby remembered or conflated) was in Ruby's immediate knowledge, a second address, known by heart, which came to his mind here by mistake, just as he knew Joyce McDonald's address by heart. The question of interest becomes: why does Ruby know the street address where Tippit was killed, to have gotten the two confused? Ruby's mistake may signal unexplained knowledge or interest in that address calling for explanation. That house appears to have been vacant at the time of the Tippit killing according to city directory information. However Virginia Davis, who lived with her sister-in-law two houses away at the corner house on East 10th and Patton, 400 E. 10th St., made a curious comment in her Warren Commission testimony to an officer, whom she seemed to have initially assumed was Tippit, lived in that particular house two houses away, at 410 E. Tenth. This is Virginia Davis testifying what happened after she heard shots:

Mrs. Davis. No, sir; we just saw a police car sitting on the side of the road.

Mr. Belin. Where was the police car parked?

Mrs. Davis. It was parked between the hedge that marks the apartment house where he lives in [410 E. 10th] and the house next door.

Mr. Belin. Was it on your side of East 10th or the other side of the street?

Mrs. Davis. It was on our side, the same side that we lived on.

Virginia Davis years later told Dale Myers she had had no idea where Tippit lived and could not imagine why she would have said that. However, according to the stenographer recording her WC testimony in 1964 Virginia Davis did say that. And recall that Scoggins, the cabbie, parked around the corner on Patton from E. 10th at the time of the killing, claimed he recognized Tippit's police cruiser as there regularly.

Something interesting about that street address (410 E. 10th) where according to the city directory no one was listed as living, but which two neighborhood witnesses seemed to think a police officer was living there, a street address in front of which Tippit was killed, and it was this street address which Ruby had committed to memory.

It is perhaps conceivable that Ruby had no prior relationship with that house and simply had been told that street address either from news sources or some private informant, as the street address where Tippit was killed, some time that weekend before Ruby shot and killed Oswald on Sunday morning. The address stuck in his memory and Ruby confused it with Joyce McDonald's when asked for Joyce McDonald's, due to the accident of their similarity. That is one possibility, but there is another possibility: that Ruby had some relationship or knowledge of the house at that street address which preceded the Tippit killing, enough to have committed that street address to memory via familiarity. And if Ruby had some knowledge or relationship to the house at that address prior to the Tippit killing, that raises the question of a possible Ruby relationship either to the Tippit killing or the location where it occurred, even if we may not know what that relationship may have been.

Contrast that with nothing to associate Oswald with that address or any other address on East Tenth Street, and a total lack of any known logic or explanation why Oswald would have gone to or have been on East Tenth Street in the first place. 

In other words, there is here an association of Ruby with the street address of the Tippit killing, uttered from his own mouth on the same day he killed Oswald--a freak Freudian slip?--reinforces other grounds for suspicion that the killer of Tippit at that address and then would-be killer of Oswald in the Texas Theatre that day, might have been Curtis Craford, employed by Ruby.

The Tippit killing of Nov 22 in front of 410 East Tenth Street, the address of Ruby’s “Freudian slip” utterance on Nov. 24, was followed by a failed attempt on the part of the killer of Tippit to kill Oswald in the Texas Theatre. That intent to kill Oswald on that occasion failed (Oswald's life saved by the timely arrival of police and arrest of Oswald). Following that, Ruby assisted his recent hire, ex-hit man Curtis Craford, killer of Tippit and would-be killer of Oswald, in fleeing Dallas that night, in the early hours of the next morning.

Ruby admitted that he and another man (George Senator) picked up Craford at the Carousel Club at about 4 or 5 am in the early morning hours of Sat Nov 23 and Craford fled Dallas for Michigan that morning.

But even before helping his employee of brief duration and unclear job duties, Curtis Craford, to fly by night to another end of the country leaving Dallas precipitously the night after Tippit was killed and Oswald had narrowly avoided the same fate from the same killer, Ruby seemed to be talking to nearly everyone in sight of the need to extrajudicially kill Oswald before trial, according to anecdotal testimonies.

Ruby framed this focus of attention on his part in terms of his grief for the JFK assassination and sympathy for Jackie Kennedy. As Ruby told it, it was all about compassion for Jackie Kennedy, and had nothing to do with the many mob contacts represented in his phone records and his personal mob associations later catalogued by the HSCA and journalists such as Seth Kantor. In the version told by Ruby, laying groundwork for a defense with intent to be viewed sympathetically in the public eye and at the time of sentencing, his talk and intent to kill Oswald prior to trial had nothing to do with the recent arrival of a hit man whom he barely knew but generously offered housing in the Carousel Club until said hit man fled Dallas with no goodbys in the early morning hours of Saturday Nov 23. 

In addition to Ruby talking of the necessity for Oswald to be killed before trial, beginning mid-afternoon on Fri Nov 22 according to witness testimony, Ruby's movements that weekend show him stalking Oswald at the police station Friday and Saturday, then on Sunday morning Nov 24 carried out the killing of Oswald that his employee had failed to accomplish at the Texas Theatre on Friday.

Ruby's confusion of those two street addresses--that slip of the tongue, that Freudian slip, told by Ruby to the FBI on Sunday Nov 24, the street address where Tippit met his killer instead of the different street address where his dancer Joyce McDonald lived which he meant to say—has gone largely unnoticed, or if noticed misunderstood, its significance not appreciated, in discussions of the Tippit killing to date. There is certainly no record of law enforcement at the time pressing Ruby to explain why that particular street address--the street address where Tippit met his killer--was the content of Ruby's mistake.

But I do not think that would be a detail that the fictional television detective Colombo would have missed, if Columbo had been on this case.

Edited July 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

The murder weapon of the Tippit killing

On the night of Nov 22/23, 1963, the night following the killing of officer Tippit in Oak Cliff by a killer using a .38 Special, someone abandoned a snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson revolver in a paper bag a few blocks away from the Carousel Club in downtown Dallas. Just threw a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag by the side of a street out of a car window, just got rid of it. It was found by a citizen the next morning who turned it in to the Dallas Police (documentation quoted and linked below).

By that time--Saturday morning Nov 23--the narrative had already developed and was being reported around the world: Lee Harvey Oswald had assassinated JFK from his workplace at the Texas School Book Depository and then had shot and killed officer Tippit in Oak Cliff. Police had both the rifle and the revolver of Oswald. There was no missing murder weapon in the Tippit killing.

But the next morning after the killing of officer Tippit by a .38 Special revolver--the only known murder by handgun in the Dallas area that day--a mystery .38 Smith & Wesson revolver turned up abandoned on a downtown Dallas street. 

Think of the oddity of that timing.

Why would someone toss a .38 Special Smith & Wesson revolver in a paper bag out of a car on a street in downtown Dallas, the night of Nov 22/23, 1963? Think hard—is there any reason why anyone would do that that particular night?

There are only about two reasons I can think why that make any sense: either it had just been used in a crime such as an armed robbery or a killing and the perpetrator was abandoning an untraceable weapon so as not to be incriminated by having it found on their person if arrested, or, somebody who was not supposed to be in possession of a weapon was being pulled over by a police cruiser and threw it out a car window before coming to a stop, to avoid having it found in their possession.

The first question police might ask (one would think) would be whether there had been a homicide or gangland killing involving a handgun which might shed light on that abandoned snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson.

But there was no handgun homicide in Dallas at that time other than the killing of Tippit. And police already had (or thought they did) the murder weapon for that, the Oswald revolver.

Nevertheless it would still be assumed that the Dallas Police Department--the assassination of JFK and killing of officer Tippit by that kind of handgun hours earlier totally aside--would investigate that paper-bag snub-nosed .38 revolver and have records of it. But in this case that is not the case. The Dallas Police disappeared any record that was made of that paper-bag .38 revolver. The only reason the existence of that revolver is known is from FBI documents first released in 1978 and first noticed in the 1990s. There is no issue that the FBI document, and hence the underlying Dallas Police Department information from which the FBI documents derived, are inauthentic, nor has that been alleged. As told in this account by Bill Adams in the May 1996 issue of Fourth Decade (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48693#relPageId=8).

"The FBI unleashed a controversy in 1978 when they released 100,000 pages of documents concerning its investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. Within those 100,000 pages was a very intriguing document. That same year the Assassination Information Bureau (AIB) reviewed the FBI document release and reported the discovery of various documents in the AIB's newsletter, Clandestine America. One issue of the newsletter mentioned that a .38 caliber revolver was discovered 'in a paper bag in the immediate vicinity of the assassination site.' 

"In the Fall of 1991 I was reading through Paul Hoch's collection of Clandestine America when I came across the AIB article on the revolver. I was intrigued by the potential implications of a second gun being found in Dealey Plaza [sic]. Over the next few months I contacted many assassination researchers and was disappointed to learn that none of them had ever heard of the revolver. (. . .)

"At this point I decided to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain any additional revolver documents that existed. During the last few days of 1991 I filed the first of many FOIA requests with the FBI regarding the revolver. My first request went to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Two months later the FBI responded to my request by sending copies of '2 pages of preprocessed material.' I was making progress faster than I expected and now possessed three documents concerning the revolver. The new documents provided more detail about the FBI investigation of the revolver and claimed the revolver had been found 'in [the] immediate vicinity of the assassination area.' I now could confirm that the AIB and Woods did in fact have two different documents on the revolver. These documents had apparently also been released as part of the FBI's 1978 release but had not been reported by the AIB. Four years later [1996], as I write this article, I am still awaiting the FBI's closure of this request and/or release of additional documents responsive to my request.

"During the summer of 1993 I gave up waiting for the FBI to complete my 1991 FOIA request. I filed a new FOIA request with each of the involved FBI Field Offices--Boston, Dallas, Philadelphia, and Springfield. Within a month I had responses from all four Field Offices. Springfield said they had no responsive documents but would refer me to FBI Headquarters. Both Dallas and Philadelphia referred me to FBI Headquarters as well. Boston however provided a bizarre response: they were 'currently unable to locate [their] files pertaining to the assassination.' Boston assured me that 'when/if the file is located, processing of [my] request will continue and [I would] be advised of the results.' Apparently they never did find their file as Boston has never sent another reply to my FOIA request.

"As a result of the assassination Records Collection Act (ARCA) of 1992 the FBI files reviewed by the HSCA were released to the National Archives. One of these FBI files turned out to be a two page document concerning the FBI's attempts to trace the revolver. This document also mentions that the revolver was 'found in a paper bag in the immediate vicinity of the assassination area.' I obtained this document from a different researcher and now possessed four different revolver documents. (. . .)

"Early in 1995 Paul Hoch sent me a copy of another AIB discovered document concerning that revolver. He discovered this document while looking for other material I had requested, unrelated to the revolver investigation. This document was also apparently included in the 1978 FBI document release. This document was a new fifth document that I had never seen before and my FOIA requests had not uncovered. The document provides the missing piece to the revolver puzzle. The document not only reveals where the revolver was found but who found it. The following quote from this document shows just how wrong I and other researchers were [concerning a Dealey Plaza location]:

"'On 11/23/63, Patrolman L. Raz brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265...had been found near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat...'"

The corner of Ross and Lamar is only about 6 blocks, about 0.3 miles, from Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club which was at 13-1/2 Commerce, where Curtis Craford (or as he was then known, Larry Crafard) was staying. Ruby drove to his Club and picked up Craford ca. 5 am the night Craford fled Dallas, about 2-3 hours before the citizen found the paper bag with the revolver and reported it. The spot where the revolver was thrown out the car window at Ross and Lamar is in excellent agreement with a car taking a passenger from the Carousel Club to nearby 35E going north. 

Like other matters of evidence concerning the Tippit killing, the disappearance of Dallas Police records concerning this revolver falls into a pattern of DPD handling of evidence relevant to the Tippit killing.

• names and addresses officers had been instructed to collect and had collected, of theatre patrons in the Texas Theatre: no record (disappeared)
• missing identity or any other information concerning a man questioned by police who came out of the balcony of the Texas Theatre moments after the suspected Tippit killer had been reported to police to be in the balcony, a man who was not Oswald but who a deputy sheriff mistakenly believed had been Oswald.
• the lack of any record of interview of John Callahan, the general manager of the Texas Theatre who was present that day and took the tickets of persons entering the theatre, who could have been able to say whether or not he recognized one of those from whom he had taken a ticket as having been Oswald, if he had been asked. The FBI and Warren Commission never interviewed him either. Neither did any journalist or book author for the rest of Callahan’s life so far as is known. That police talked to Callahan that day is mentioned in reports. Is it possible he was asked and did answer, and that is why there is no record of him having been asked or further interviewed?
• the lack of a direct statement under oath from any of the five officers who marked their initials on the four shell hulls removed by the Tippit gunman from the gunman’s .38 Special revolver, found at the Tippit crime scene, identifying their initials on the hulls that the Dallas Police Crime Lab turned over to the FBI, which the FBI found had been fired from Oswald's revolver (a pattern consistent with and raising the question of whether there had been substitutions of hulls in the chain of custody).
• and in the present case, the complete non-existence of any Dallas Police records or information concerning the paper-bag revolver, the same kind of weapon that was used in the killing of Tippit, turned in to the Dallas Police by a citizen the morning of Nov 23, 1963, after having been found tossed in a paper bag from a car 

It is not argued here that Dallas Police were party to the assassination or to the killing of one of their own officers. It is rather that once there was a decision to close the case by wrapping it up on Oswald as the killer, evidence that did not assist in making that case in court or in the eyes of public opinion was either not of interest or in certain cases covered up, in the interests of assisting in closure of the case.    

Here is the full text of the FBI document which refers to the find of that revolver turned in to the Dallas Police (posted in the article, Gil Jesus, “The Gun in the Bag”, https://jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/983/gun-bag).

MEMORANDUM

TO SAC, DALLAS (89-43) DATE: 11/25/63

FROM SA RICHARD E. HARRISON

SUBJECT: ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY

On 11/23/63, Patrolman J. RAZ brought into the Homicide and Robbery Bureau, Dallas PD, a brown paper sack which contained a snub-nosed .38 caliber Smith & Wesson, SN 893265.

This gun had the word "England" on the cylinder and had been found at approximately 7:30 AM in a brown paper sack, together with an apple and an orange, near the curb at the corner of Ross and Lamar Streets and was turned in by one Willie Flat, white male, 9221 Metz Drive, employed at 4770 Memphis, to the Dallas PD.

2-Dallas

REH:cah

(2) FBI DL 89-43-636

That was followed by three other FBI documents (given in full at the same link above), dated Nov 29, Nov 29, and Nov 30, 1963, which report FBI efforts to trace the serial number and history of that firearm. Record was found from the serial number that that revolver had been shipped by the Smith & Wesson company on Jan 13, 1942 to the US Government, Hartford Ordnance, Hartford, Conn. It was reported by a sales manager of Smith & Wesson that 

"shipments to Hartford Ordnance at that time were destined for England under Lend-Lease Agreement and stamping on cylinder is probably a proof-mark of that government certifying its acceptance. Such weapons are known to have been sold surplus in England, altered and rechambered in that country to accommodate thirty-eight special ammunition. Such weapons were subsequently imported for sale by U.S. gun dealers."

.38 Special is the kind of bullets which killed officer Tippit. A snub-nosed .38 modified to fire .38 Special bullets is both the kind of this revolver and the kind of revolver that Oswald had, making two distinct weapons of the same kind, both compatible with having been used in the killing of officer Tippit, but one was not so used in that killing—which was the one not used in the Tippit killing, and its exact match to the kind of weapon that was used, was coincidence? 

Also, the snub-nosed .38 Special may have been the most common type of concealed handgun in America at the time. Thus Oswald’s possession of a snub-nosed .38 Special could well be coincidence (carried by him for self-defense, not used to murder), if the other snub-nosed .38 Special (the one tossed from a car in a paper bag) was the murder weapon used to kill Tippit.

Note for example in CE 2011, the FBI document prepared for the Warren Commission, that .38 Special revolvers--.38 revolvers which had been modified and rechambered to fire .38 Special bullets--are referred to as simply .38's. In any case the FBI document quoted above verifies that the paper-bag snub-nosed .38 Smith & Wesson found a few blocks from the Carousel Club was a .38 Special, the kind of gun used to kill Tippit.

The FBI documents do not give further tracing information of what became of that weapon after its original shipment in 1942 to the US Government in Connecticut and then likely shipment to England and likely return to the US for sale as surplus. 

There is no record of the FBI comparing any of the four bullets taken from Tippit's body in the autopsy to bullets fired from that paper-bag revolver found hours after that killing, to test for a possible match. Such comparison was done with bullets fired from Oswald’s revolver (with the FBI reporting inconclusive results, neither confirming nor excluding a match). But there is no record of any similar examination of the paper-bag revolver; why?

Is this information concerning this paper-bag revolver not simply stunning, with respect to the Tippit case? It should be. 

That paper-bag snub-nosed .38 found abandoned in downtown Dallas some time before 7:30 am Nov 23, 1963—the mention of “fruit” found also in the paper bag, as well as the likely high traffic and visibility of anything tossed into the street at the Ross and Lamar location, suggests the tossing of that revolver was recent, likely earlier that same night--was not identified with any other crime, any other homicide, nor any owner. Whereas a citizen carrying a concealed weapon does not necessarily imply that citizen has murdered or intends to murder, the tossing of an untraceable handgun in a paper bag on a street does suggest or imply just that--that the weapon could well have been used in a crime or homicide such as a contract killing or hit.

Which of these two revolvers is more likely to have been the murder weapon in the killing of Tippit—killed with a professional coup de grace shot into the forehead as found in the autopsy and as claimed to have been seen by witness Tatum? The handgun found on Oswald at his arrest? Or the handgun tossed because it had been recently used in a homicide or contract killing--the very night following the Tippit killing, tossed only a few blocks from the Carousel Theatre the very night of Craford's flight from Dallas, after he was picked up in a car at the Carousel Theatre by Jack Ruby and George Senator at about 5 am.?

And if there was not a connection of that paper-bag .38 revolver to the Tippit killing, why did the Dallas Police disappear all traces if records of that revolver, and the FBI have inadequate records as well? Why is the owner of record of that weapon by serial number not known, why is no ballistics testing by either DPD or FBI known? Why the coincidence in the timing?Why the coverup?

Let us go to the conclusion suggested: that abandoned paper-bag snub-nosed Smith & Wesson .38 Special was the murder weapon of Tippit. That was the murder weapon used by Curtis Craford to murder Tippit after which he reloaded and went to the Texas Theatre to murder Oswald except that was prevented by the arrival of police who arrested Oswald. The Tippit murder weapon was not Oswald's snub-nosed .38 revolver, although elements of the Dallas Police sought to have it look and concluded that way. Oswald was innocent of the murder of Tippit. He didn't do it. Craford did, and he did it with that revolver found in the paper bag.

What became of that paper-bag .38 Special Smith & Wesson revolver? Where is that revolver today? Nobody knows. 

What was going on with his kind of (almost literally) smoking-gun evidence which disappeared while in either police custody—evidence that very likely would have exonerated Oswald?

Gone, just gone. Never examined for ballistics characteristics, fingerprints, or comparison with Tippit body bullets. 

Just disappeared, vanished. 

The murder weapon of Tippit.

Gone, likely for good, forever.

From police hands the day after Tippit was killed.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Pete Mellor]

You astound me Holmes! 🔍 

[Greg Doudna]

I don't know about that Pete, but here is something that has sobered me from studying this Tippit case: the realization of what must be a high number of criminal convictions of innocent people in history, convicted by juries who in almost all cases thought they were convicting the right person. 

To continue: when the Tippit killer ran into the Texas Theatre, as noticed by Brewer and Julia Postal, I am convinced it was the sheer accident of, first, Brewer and usher Burroughs could not see anyone in the balcony in the dim light where the killer had gone after entering (somehow he in the balcony avoided being seen by Brewer and Burroughs peering up into the dark balcony looking for him), and second, Brewer still from a distance, from the stage, saw Oswald in the ground level seating area stand up and move and that caught Brewer's attention, and he had a similar dark shirt, and Brewer told police, "that's him!", with, in Brewer's view, his identification retrospectively proven correct and any doubt in his mind removed if there ever was any, by all the information that came forth about the man he had pointed out: Oswald.

Brewer fingered to police the wrong man who, as it quickly became clear, was the leading suspect in the JFK assassination--Brewer by mistake fingered the killer's target, the hit man's intended victim in that theatre, the reason the killer went to that theatre, instead of the killer who had entered the theatre and had gone into the balcony, just as Julia Postal knew and told officers. Police arrested the killer's next target rather than the killer.

Brewer's mistaken identification, and the fact that Oswald had a revolver of the same kind that killed Tippit on his person, and that he resisted arrest (but did not try to shoot a police officer), and that Oswald appeared to have been the assassin of President Kennedy according to police and news reports, sealed the case against Oswald in the Tippit killing, in the eyes of police and the world.

The killer of Tippit went into the balcony and may have been the man deputy sheriff Bill Courson said he saw coming out of the balcony, in Sneed, No More Silence, p. 485. The lack of any police record of the names of balcony theatre patrons that day even though police had been ordered to take down names and addresses of patrons in the theatre--could it be that was because some officer had recognized that individual, recognized Craford as an associate of Ruby (with the possible Mob implications that could involve)? Either the killer left the theatre before the names of patrons were taken down, or in order to conceal or foreclose further investigation concerning the identity of one name that had been taken down the entire list of names was "lost". Notably, no citizen ever came forward in later years to identify himself as having been the man who had just left the theatre balcony questioned by police that day, immediately after the killer of Tippit went into that balcony.  

When police converged on the Texas Theatre in response to Julia Postal's call to the police regarding a suspicious man in the balcony, officer Henry Stringer who arrived to the back of the theatre found a pickup truck idling with its engine running, no driver in sight (report of Stringer, Dec 3, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=260; Myers, With Malice, p. 229). To my knowledge that has never been explained in any document I have seen (i.e. the driver identified and explanation of why that vehicle had been left with its engine running). Perhaps there is a mundane explanation, but a non-mundane explanation might be that was a getaway vehicle for someone inside the theatre intent on killing Oswald, and the driver, perhaps standing somewhere a little removed from the running vehicle, melted into bystanders or fled when police cruisers came to the location.  

Edited July 18, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

The Tippit killer's fingerprints

The fingerprints on Tippit's car by the passenger window where the killer was witnessed leaning in to talk to Tippit, and found on the right front fender where the killer went around to shoot Tippit and may have leaned and put his hand on the hood or bumper in that location for balance . . . for decades were identified as "smear prints...none of value", and thereby not excluded as Oswald's.

In either 1998 or 2013, whichever it was (I have the 2013 edition of Myers, With Malice), Dale Myers produced and reported one of the single most exculpatory or exonerating evidentiary indications of Oswald's innocence in the Tippit killing.

For it was Dale Myers who did what no one prior to him had done--he obtained those fingerprints from Dallas Police Department files and had an experienced latent fingerprint expert make a fresh study of them. That expert, Herbert Lutz of Wayne County, Michigan, found that the prints on the passenger door and the right front fender were:

• made by the same individual, and
• that individual was not Oswald (match to Oswald's prints was excluded)

(pp. 336-340 of Myers, With Malice) 

This is extraordinarily significant, in terms of the issue of Oswald's guilt or innocence in the Tippit killing.

It does not matter that Dale Myers is the leading proponent that Oswald killed Tippit. That has nothing to do with anything here. What matters is Myers, and no one else, produced new information, a new fact, of extraordinary relevance to the Tippit case.

For those fingerprints practically certainly were left by the killer of Tippit. There is a remote possibility that that is not the case, that somebody other than the Tippit killer left those prints in those two locations exactly where the killer was with respect to Tippit's car. So it is not quite airtight. Also, separate issue, with the whole Malcom Wallace fingerprint saga in mind, second and third expert opinion corroborations would be better than just one expert opinion. But the one expert opinion is what we have to go on, it is what it is, and there is nothing known to refute or impugn it at this time.

Now to the basic question: what are the odds that those prints were left by the killer? Well, this is in the end going to be a subjective judgment, and judgments will vary. But I will give mine: I would put that at about 90-95% confidence that those prints are from the killer. Not 100%, not complete certainty. But 90-95%, almost certain. The reason is the two locations match the killer's location so perfectly with eyewitness testimony of where the killer was. And even more than that, the expert's finding that the passenger door prints and the right front bumper prints are not from different individuals but from the same individual. It is this last point which to me spikes the probability way up to ca. 90-95%.

To repeat and emphasize, what Dale Myers produced in this is new, going beyond what was previously known.

Myers judges what he regards as overwhelming evidence on other grounds that Oswald killed Tippit, combined with the slight possibility that the fingerprints may not be from the killer, to maintain his conclusion that Oswald killed Tippit. That is, Myers does not interpret the prints as exonerating Oswald. That is neither here nor there, that is not important. What matters is Dale Myers produced this highly relevant information, it is extraordinarily important new information, and never mind Myers' own interpretation of what he produced, it strongly suggests, if not comes close to outright establishing, that Oswald was not the Tippit killer.

Furthermore, those prints--almost certainly from the killer; not from Oswald--potentially could identify the actual killer. They could be checked against Craford's prints. Craford had a criminal record, certainly in Oregon. There must be prints of Craford in existence. This could be done.

Even at this late date, the Tippit case potentially could be solved in history on the basis of those fingerprints.

But the existing information of these fingerprints already known now, thanks to Myers, strongly suggests exculpation of Oswald--whether or not a true solution to the case may or may or may not be established.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[David Josephs]

On 10/11/2021 at 4:01 AM, Greg Doudna said:

The Tippit murder weapon was not Oswald's .38. Oswald was innocent of the murder of Tippit. He didn't do it. Crafard did. 

Do you see it being Crawford led out the back of the theater to waiting DPD cops and a running pickup truck as seen by the store owner… name escapes me.

and that would suggest those at the back of the theater… Baggett, Westbrook, Hawkins, etc MUST be aware of this charade to frame Ozzie and remove Crawford from the scene….

Excellent write up.. deep and meaningful.  How do you see Vaganov involved?

he only lived down the road from all this action and was loaded with the same weapon types that did the killings…  Magen was also mistaken for Oswald by ATF ELLSWORTH.

Personally I see a strong chance that Vaganov was Tippit’s contract killer.  And btw, NAGY was also in town at this time… fwiw.

 

[John Butler]

David,

Interesting ideas.  Most people don't have great facial recognition skills for those met infrequently.  Freguently?  Maybe.

But, in the case of the Oswald doubles they are seen infrequently by various folks and suggestion by others would easily lead to those folks identifying Oswald who was actually someone else who resembled Oswald.  Sometimes, even remotely resembled Oswald.

[Greg Doudna]

Hi David Josephs, on Vaganov, I don't think he was the Tippit gunman. A number of witnesses saw the gunman and gave fairly good physical descriptions which does not agree with Vaganov's height of 6'2". I do not think a single witness described the gunman as tall, which would be one of the first things a witness who had seen Vaganov would say. (Acquila Clemons' seeing of a tall man waving to the killer and hearing him shout "go on!" I have elsewhere argued--shown, I think--was Acquila Clemons standing at the northwest corner of Tenth and Patton seeing Ted Callaway, who was big and tall, on Patton waving across the street to the killer and shouting "hey man, what's going on?") Also I believe the light-gray, near-white jacket found behind the Texaco station at Jefferson and Crawford was left by the killer, and as brought out by author John Berendts in an Aug 1967 Esquire article on Vaganov, that jacket measured 32 1/2 inches sleeve length whereas Vaganov's sleeve length measured 36 inches.

A distinctive red car seen by Benavides at the scene of the Tippit killing was suspected to be Vaganov's red Thunderbird but what Benavides saw is pretty clearly now identified as Jack Tatum's red 1964 Ford Galaxie--the movements of the red car described by Benavides match Tatum's car's movements. And finally, there is no evidence connecting Vaganov to the killing of Tippit or to anyone involved in Ruby's circle. Vaganov had some brushes with the law mainly for forged check writing but in the end he let Esquire magazine pay him to tell his story and most of his story checked out, such as a report that he had told his wife's mother he was offered a job at $17,500 a month and Vaganov explained that was an Encyclopedia Britannica salesman ad promising as much as $1,750 month earnings, and Berendts verified Encyclopedia Britannica had run such ads. The Aug 1967 Esquire article on Vaganov: https://classic.esquire.com/article/19670801073/print.

I agree with Berendts in the conclusion of that article: "Vaganov's willingness to be questioned, to have his picture published in a national magazine, to go to Dallas and face the Tippit eyewitnesses, would by themselves tend to rule him out. Furthermore there is not one shred of direct evidence linking him with either killing that day or with any of the principals involved."

Edited October 15, 2021 by Greg Doudna

[Tony Rose]

Outstanding work, Mr. Doudna.  Lots of things start to click into place when you follow your suppositions about Crafard.

[Paul Jolliffe]

On 9/14/2021 at 9:08 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Micah, the point 5 on Tommy Rowe is completely bogus, fiction (I looked into that earlier). 

On the other points, I don't see Johnny Brewer having done anything wilfully wrong that day except make a mistaken ID of Oswald (and that is what I think it was, a mistake) as the man who entered the theatre past Julia Postal without paying. The two IBM friends in his store I don't think have anything to do with anything. I do not see Johnny Brewer as a conspirator that day. I think Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal's summoning of the police so quickly saved Oswald's life that day--the police presence preventing Oswald from being killed in that theatre by the killer of Tippit who was in the theatre.   

Greg,

I too am suspicious about the "Tommy Rowe" story. It is distant hearsay, and completely uncheckable.

However, the critical thing about Brewer is this: he knew "Oswald" by name and sight, and did not like him!

Our "Oswald" had been a customer in Hardy's Shoes and was obnoxious and memorable. A pair of shoes from Hardy's was inventoried by the DPD in "Oswald's" meager possessions. 

As Brewer told Ian Griggs "I just didn't know who I was looking for", yet Brewer did know! Brewer remembered "Oswald" from several weeks earlier that fall!

Key question: why didn't Brewer recognize the man in the vestibule of Hardy's Shoes as the same man he knew and detested?

Because the man in the vestibule was NOT our "Oswald." (Maybe it was Crafard, maybe not.)

Yet Brewer was more than willing to point out NOT the man in the vestibule, but his old customer instead. Some witness.

The mysterious "IMB men" really did prompt Brewerto walk down the sidewalk and speak with Julia Postal.

How do we know?

Because Johnny Brewer admitted to Ian Griggs that "he didn't really know why he was there . . ." Why not?

Because the universally told story that Johnny Brewer witnessed the unknown man duck into the theater without buying a ticket was a lie.

No one can stand on the sidewalk in front of Hardy's Shoes and see the ticket booth at the Texas Theater. The booth is recessed back from the sidewalk. The only way to see the booth is to walk to the front of the theater. Any transaction at the booth would have been invisible to Johnny Brewer unless he was standing almost in front of the theater. Yet the very reason he claimed he was suspicious was because he saw the man duck in without paying. Brewer could have seen no such thing from any location on the sidewalk anywhere near Hardy's.

Incidentally, as I pointed out years ago, all three early audio/video taped interviews with Johnny Brewer all contain the same bizarre interruption of his narrative, just as he about to describe how and why he went down to the Texas Theater.

For one example, here's Vincent Bugliosi himself, interrupting Brewer at the 3:42 mark ("and thereupon you")  just as Brewer was about tell us what happened as he stood in front of Hardy's Shoes. This interruption kept Brewer from mentioning any possible prompting from any "IBM men."

(If anyone is interested, I can post the other two examples from the 1960's):

 

[Sean Coleman]

40 minutes ago, Paul Jolliffe said:

Greg,

I too am suspicious about the "Tommy Rowe" story. It is distant hearsay, and completely uncheckable.

However, the critical thing about Brewer is this: he knew "Oswald" by name and sight, and did not like him!

Our "Oswald" had been a customer in Hardy's Shoes and was obnoxious and memorable. A pair of shoes from Hardy's was inventoried by the DPD in "Oswald's" meager possessions. 

As Brewer told Ian Griggs "I just didn't know who I was looking for", yet Brewer did know! Brewer remembered "Oswald" from several weeks earlier that fall!

Key question: why didn't Brewer recognize the man in the vestibule of Hardy's Shoes as the same man he knew and detested?

Because the man in the vestibule was NOT our "Oswald." (Maybe it was Crafard, maybe not.)

Yet Brewer was more than willing to point out NOT the man in the vestibule, but his old customer instead. Some witness.

The mysterious "IMB men" really did prompt Brewerto walk down the sidewalk and speak with Julia Postal.

How do we know?

Because Johnny Brewer admitted to Ian Griggs that "he didn't really know why he was there . . ." Why not?

Because the universally told story that Johnny Brewer witnessed the unknown man duck into the theater without buying a ticket was a lie.

No one can stand on the sidewalk in front of Hardy's Shoes and see the ticket booth at the Texas Theater. The booth is recessed back from the sidewalk. The only way to see the booth is to walk to the front of the theater. Any transaction at the booth would have been invisible to Johnny Brewer unless he was standing almost in front of the theater. Yet the very reason he claimed he was suspicious was because he saw the man duck in without paying. Brewer could have seen no such thing from any location on the sidewalk anywhere near Hardy's.

Incidentally, as I pointed out years ago, all three early audio/video taped interviews with Johnny Brewer all contain the same bizarre interruption of his narrative, just as he about to describe how and why he went down to the Texas Theater.

For one example, here's Vincent Bugliosi himself, interrupting Brewer at the 3:42 mark ("and thereupon you")  just as Brewer was about tell us what happened as he stood in front of Hardy's Shoes. This interruption kept Brewer from mentioning any possible prompting from any "IBM men."

(If anyone is interested, I can post the other two examples from the 1960's):

 

 

Brewer defo telling porkies

[Paul Jolliffe]

1 hour ago, Sean Coleman said:

 

Brewer defo telling porkies

Absolutely right.

Here is second promised clip (with the bizarre interruption at the same moment!) from "Four Days in November" in which Brewer himself stands in front of Hardy's. At the same time, the camera pans down the street toward the theater. Brewer tells his his actions "the man walked out, up toward the Texas Theater" . . . yes Johnny? What happened next precisely? 

But at that exact moment,  the narrator interrupts to confirm the "official" version. Begin at the 1:30 mark.

The theater ticket booth is invisible from Hardy's and the makers of this documentary knew it. That's why they stopped Brewer's recorded statement. 

 

[Paul Jolliffe]

At the 1 hour and 16 minute mark, Brewer is interviewed for the CBS 1964 Warren Report promotion.

Note that the interview cuts away from a visibly nervous Brewer just as he tells us that "Oswald" turned and walked up to the theater.  Instead we see the camera on the sidewalk and the interview jumps to Brewer's statement "I walked up the sidewalk and watched him go in. Then, ah, I walked up to the theater and I asked Miss Postal, the cashier, if she had sold a ticket to this man wearing a brown sports shirt, you know his description. Uh, she called the police and Butch covered the front exit and I went down to the back exit and waited there until the police came . . . "

Thanks, Johnny. So helpful. You described what you couldn't see, based on a man whose clothing did NOT fit either the Tippit killer.

Even in this CBS whitewash, it is obvious that any ticket transaction was invisible to anyone on the sidewalk unless they were right next to the theater.

So exactly why did you walk down the sidewalk to the theater, Johnny? Who urged you? Did you let the truth slip out in your interview with Ian Griggs 25 years ago - you were prompted by two mysterious "IBM" men, who helpfully remained at the shoe store, and even volunteered to close the shop for you!

Again, begin at the 1 hour and 16 minute mark:

Ian Griggs' 1996 interview with Brewer is invaluable. I think by 1996, Brewer was much closer to the truth about two key facts: he knew on sight and remembered our "Oswald" as a previous (unpleasant) customer, and he did NOT go up to the Texas Theater on his own volition.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16235#relPageId=8 

[Joseph McBride]

There is evidence that Jack Ruby helped stage the

Tippit murder scene.

Edited December 15, 2021 by Joseph McBride

[Ron Bulman]

52 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

There is evidence that Jack Ruby helped stage the

Tippit murder scene.

I have and have read your book but I forget this. Can you please explain?